Not PC

. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Thoughtful pieces for a long weekend

** Here's another good thoughtful piece suitable for a long weekend, a short piece which helps explain all the day-to-day irrationalism we see around us, Harry Binswanger writing on The Battle of Our Era:

We are engaged in a vast battle to defend scientific, industrial civilization against irrationalism.

Whether the enemy bombs the World Trade Center, abortion clinics, logging equipment, or medical research labs, the target is the same: reason--the use of reason to produce material values.

And afterwards, have another look of you haven't already at Numberwatch, a site that hosts A Complete List of Things Caused by Global Warming. You'll be surprised. Numberwatch has more than 300 predictions and accounts of death, destruction, disaster and calamity, and all (as they say) "on 0.006 deg C per year! " And maybe if you just want the short story, here's Junk Science's Pub Quiz Guide to Global Warming.

Here's shocking video from a mountain-climbing trip to Mount Everest that reveals the Chinese to be as murderous as ever. In it, Chinese soldiers shoot Tibetan pilgrims without seeming provocation or due process.

the Ministry of Social Development released its Annual Report today. Full of meaningless repetitive waffle it proudly informs us that there are now 9,000 employees in 200 sites, "supporting more than 1 million New Zealanders in living successful lives." What can I say?"

What can one say about an agency boasting about over one-quarter of the country being on welfare (that is, one-million plus nine-thousand)? Get angry about it too, and then say it to your MP.

** And if you haven't seen it yet, my own humble piece describing how the left's Third Way is simply the mirror image of the right's Neoconservatism is, I humbly suggest, worth a read. As a ccmmenter said at SOLO, "I hope everyone here has read this, as it nutshells the modern western political raison d'etre." I do believe it does: How 'Left' Meets 'Right' in the Authoritarian Middle. And perhaps you could bookend it with a 'companion piece' of mine that looks ascance at both wings: Are Libertarians Right Wing?

** And finally, news in from Variety magazine that a new screenwriter has been appointed to adapt Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged to the screen. The new man is Randall Wallace, previously responsible for 'Braveheart.' Here's hoping for a good result.

"The problem is too little globalisation, and too little capitalism..."

“It is correct that the wealth of the world is very unevenly distributed… the reason why it is unevenly distributed is that there is an uneven distribution of capitalism [..] The problem of the world today is too little globalisation and too little capitalism.” - Johan Norberg

The author of that statement, Johan Norberg (right), takes part in a thought-provoking interview that makes the perfect Saturday afternoon listening. Tune in here to 'The Devil's Advocate,' the English edition of this Swedish show in which Norberg covers:

the effects of globalisation,

how to explain the success of the Nordic welfare states and how these compare to the US,

whether the role of the state in the economic development of the Asian tigers challenges the widely held belief that economic liberalism and political and individual freedom are inseparable.

Finally we touch on Johan Norberg’s vision of the good society and how to achieve it in a world in which both left- and right-wing governments are at home with the notion of a big state.

Says the friend who sent me the link (thanks David), "I think people should hear this." Tune in here. A last excerpt before you tune in:

“My moral ground for this is based on the idea that individuals are actually quite smart they are quite creative. That’s why I think freedom is a good idea basically, because I think people can create wonders and that’s what I think history has taught us. In the last 100 years of relative freedom we have created more than in the 100.000 years of oppression, slavery and feudalism before that.”

THE ONION: N. Korea Detonates 40 Years Of GDP

THE ONION: N. Korea Detonates 40 Years Of GDPPYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA—A press release issued by the state-run Korean Central News Agency Monday confirmed that the Oct. 9 underground nuclear test in North Korea's Yanggang province successfully exploded the communist nation's total gross domestic product for the past four decades.

"This is a grand day for the Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea, whose citizens have sacrificed their wages, their food, and their lives so that our great nation could test a nuclear weapon thousands of feet beneath our own soil," read an excerpt from the statement..."

...According to the CIA, over 500 tons of compressed purchasing power, the equivalent of 40 years of goods and services produced by the impoverished country, vaporized in 560 billionths of one second. The device consumed 15 years of peasant wages' worth of uranium, two decades of agricultural- and fishery-export profits' worth for its above-ground emplacement tower, and the lifetime earnings of the entire workforce of the Kilchu fish-canning factory for tungsten/carbide-steel bomb casings...

Friday, October 20, 2006

In the pub, with the Greens.

The last two paragraphs excepted, the Greens's Frogblog comes down refreshingly on the "more freedom, less government" side of the argument on the question of banning eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds from drinking in bars. Good stuff.

The Law and Order select committee today reported to Parliament in favour of a bill to increase the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 41. In a survey of New Zealanders aged over 39 almost three quarters of respondents supported the change...

An update from today's Hypocrisy files

Thousands of motorists fined for breaching bus and transit lane bylaws during the past three and a half years could be entitled to their money back because the infringement notices were unlawful.

The Government has changed the law but has refused to backdate it because, according to parliamentary documents obtained by The Southland Times, Cabinet ministers said they were against retrospective laws and didn't think many people would ask for their money back.

Let's just read that again: "Cabinet ministers said they were against retrospective laws..."

Beer O'Clock: A fine spring beer, Wanaka Brewski

As spring continues to tease me with lovely sunny mornings and then torment me with day after day of strong nor’westers, I found myself thinking about perfect spring beers. In spring I’m looking for a beer that goes down just as well at a beachside barbeque as it does after a hard day skiing (not that I’ve ever been skiing).

My mind wandered through a plethora of fantastic kiwi beers and an almost as impressive list of quality imports -- stopping only for the briefest of moments to ponder how a pantomime donkey managed to sneak into the thought process -- before settling on a beer from Wanaka, a place where you might just be lucky enough to ski in the morning and have a beachside barbeque in the evening.

Wanaka Brewski was one of my great surprises of 2005. I’d seen it in bottle stores and supermarkets all over the country but never managed to get around to picking it up. Perhaps the name put me off? It’s more likely that sometimes, and thankfully often in the bottle stores I shop in, there is simply too much to choose from. I have, however, been picking it up here in there ever since my first sample.

Pouring a lambent pale gold, almost green-hued, it throws off a soft white foam that contains a divinely fresh aroma of sweet malt, cut grass and a hint of fruit. In the mouth there is a lot going on - the sweet malt is very juicy and delivers a delightful hop flavour that’s full of grassy, tropical fruit and spicy notes. The crisp hop bitterness cuts through the malt, leaving the juicy fruit notes to linger on the palate.

As delicate as great sauvignon blanc, yet far more quenching, the Brewski is a superbly-balanced kiwi Pilsner that lovers of Emerson’s Pilsner, Mac’s Reserve and Mac’s Wicked Blonde will appreciate.

The folk at Ratebeer agree. Beer lovers from Sweden, Denmark, Canada, USA and the Czech Republic (the home of Pilsner) are lining up to declare this as a world-class drop. Join up to Ratebeer and let the brewer know what you think, it’s only a couple of good ratings away from taking a place in the top 10 Bohemian Pilsners on the site.

Perigo now on air

Lindsay Perigo is on air now at Radio Live, from midday to 3pm. Ring in now with your petition stories. 0800 RADIO LIVE. 0800 723 465. Listen in on your radio (frequencies here), or on the net: www.radiolive.co.nz

His question for today: Is it time for the GG to throw the buggers out?

How the new 'left' and 'right' meet in the authoritarian middle

Many people have expressed surprise at the alliance of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, men respectively of the right and the left but who share an obviously genuine friendship. The answer to the apparent paradox is to be found in their respective philosophies. The so-called 'philosophies' of the left's 'Third Way' and the right's Neo-Conservatism' to which these two subscribe share more than their promoters might like to concede.

In fact, I would suggest that in all essentials the 'Third Way' is just the mirror image of 'Neo-Conservatism.' It is no accident that George Bush and Tony Blair have become allies; the understanding they so clearly share is born of a common way of seeing the political landscape, and it has lessons for us here in New Zealand.

Let me explain. These two political schools of the right and the left have until recently both of dominated their respective political 'markets,' and they've done so largely by making themselves 'pragmatic on principle': that is, they accept what they view as the 'political realities' of the present ideological and political geography of a country; they concede that capitalism produces rather more than any other alternative yet devised; and they've chosen to shackle the levers of power and the engine of capitalism simply to deliver votes.

That in a nutshell is the 'big idea' behind the ruling ideologies of both the Neocons and the Third Way zealots.

Far from being big ideas, both are little more than strategies for gaining and holding power for their 'side,' but in placing strategy over principles both leave largely bare the question of what they are gaining power for -- the result is that for both schools the pursuit of politics becomes power for power's sake - and we know (and have seen in the NZ Parliament recently) what the pursuit of power tends to do to those who pursue it absolutely. It's not at all pretty, and not all a natural environment in which freedom and liberty can flourish.

Third WayIf we look first at that "Third Way strategy" as summarised by Jordan: "The key components of that locally have been," he says,

Emphasis on the connection between social justice and economic development

Moderate political positioning, in touch with voters not activists

Pragmatic policy lines in terms of public spending and the market/community boundary

An avoidance of 'reform' as opposed to consolidation in most areas of policy

Incremental change and routing around, rather than challenging, opposition to particular policies

As I suggested above, this is hardly a 'big idea' in terms of political philosophy - this is strategy not philosophy, and if I may translate from the language of wonkery above into how it has worked in practice here, the strategy has been this:

Shackle capitalist means for socialist ends -- that is, use the engine of capitalism to produce, and the maw of politics to redistribute

Accept the political landscape (as Blair did in keeping the Thatcher reforms, and Clark has in keeping the Richardson/Douglas reforms) and seek instead to capture and massage and persuade the unthinking and the easily persuaded

Take ownership of the 'commanding heights' of state welfare (health, education, welfare), and use welfare distribution as a tool of politics: that is, make sure welfare is politically targeted (remember for example how South Auckland came in for Labour last September?) and that new welfare programmes are identified with Labour (Welfare for Working Families anyone?)

Keep former New Labour activists close and compliant (Hello Jim), and the harder left rabble quiet by whatever means necessary, including both 'buy-in' and buying off.

Blur public-private boundaries, and make both public and private companies either politically or financially dependent on the party in power

[The 'Third Way' strategy] has been a very successful strategy for Labour. The party has rebuilt from a very low share of the vote of 28% in 1996, to three consecutive election wins around 40%. The message of moderation, and of investment in public services instead of cutting taxes, has been an electoral winner.

Never mind the poverty and dependence, feel the power! "We won, you lost, eat that!" The aim of the 'Third Way' strategy is clear enough: it is power. Power for power's sake. The pursuit of power, and the holding of power once gained -- and all policy is geared to that aim, policy as the hand-maiden of power-lust.

Kristol’s advice to Republicans is: Stop taking your principles so seriously (as if that were ever a problem). The successful statesman, he argues, is chameleon-like in his ability to redefine his principles in the light of changing circumstances. Don’t concern yourselves with principles; concern yourselves with acquiring and keeping power.

In other words, make policy the hand-maiden of power-lust. Third Way leftists and Neocon rightists might start at what they see as different ends of the political spectrum, but they both meet up in the authoritarian middle. Continuing the summary of the Neocons [with Thompson's words double-indented and my own single-indented):

Neocons agree with the underlying moral principles of the socialists; they disagree merely over the best means to achieve their shared ends. As do all good socialists, neocons hold that welfare should be regarded as a right because it is grounded in people’s “needs”—and, as Kristol explains, for the neocons, “needs” are synonymous with rights...

So how does a conservative welfare state work? And how does it differ from a liberal welfare state? Behind all the rhetoric, the shabby secret is that there is very little difference except how and by whom the readies are doled out. Both liberals and Neocons opposed Clinton's refoms of the welfare state. Both liberals and neoncons promise cradle to grave nannying. The Neocons, who (like Roger Douglas) talk about socalist ends through capitalist means simply insist that the all-powerful state should provide, but people should be allowed some "choice." The state will continue to put its hand in your pocket, increasingly so say neocons, but "the people choose their own “private” social security accounts; they choose their own “private” health and child-care providers; and parents receive vouchers and choose which schools their children will attend."

The choices, of course, are not the wide-open choices of a free market; rather, the people are permitted to choose from among a handful of pre-authorized providers. The neocons call this scheme a free-market reform of the welfare state.

Socialist ends through capitalist means, you see (or at least "conservative" means, capitalism not being the process so described). And as far as the neocons' "big idea" goes, that's it. George Bernard Shaw observed years ago that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always rely on the support of Paul. The neocons rob Peter, rob Paul, and channel that money to the providers pre-approved by the ruling party (who can expect to show their gratitude in the appropriate way), clipping the ticket on the way on behalf of the paternalistic state.

So the Neocon strategy of gaining and keeping power differs in practice only marginally from the strategy of the Third Way; both seek to politicise the delivery of welfare, and in doing so both seek to enlarge and expand the nannying state and put it at the service of buying votes.

In practice, then, Neocons and Third Way strategists are soul-mates. George, meet Tony. Tony, meet George. (Jordan, how do you feel?)

The most remarkable issue about the neocons’ notion of a “governing philosophy” is that it is a strategy for governing without philosophy. The neocons unabashedly describe themselves as pragmatists; they eschew principles in favor of a mode of thinking—and they scorn thinking about what is moral in favor of thinking about what “works.” For over twenty-five years, they have fought an ideological war against ideology.

And at the end of that 'war' -- and just like Labour -- all they are left with is power, and little real idea of what to do with it. And here's the key thing, and it is this: the 'vision thing' is left for someone else to determine,

Never mind "the vision thing" -- about which George Bush Sr. agonised -- give yourself over instead to absolute rule, and let the other side seek out new visions . That's the neocon ticket. The three most important rules for absolute rule: Compromise, compromise and compromise. The fourth rule: if visions arise that are going to happen anyway, then just roll over and make sure you take the credit... This is what it means to “think politically.”

And therein here's the hope for local politics. As long as Third Way and Neocon strategists eschew ideas and the 'vision thing,' then ideas and vision become (or should become) the province of their ideologic opposition.

Libertarians are swing voters - study

With US mid-term elections coming up on November 7, a series of US studies shows that between 10 to 20 percent of US voters identify as small 'l' libertarians, and in the two-horse race that is American politics these voters are highly volatile -- debunking pundits who talk about "a country split down the middle" between red and blue and conservatove and liberal, and giving the lie to all the talk about the "shrinking of the swing vote."

For those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, it may be most notable that the libertarian vote shifted sharply in 2004. Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in Iraq. If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win.

The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it.

I wonder what size the small 'l' libertarian vote is here in New Zealand? (I would at least wager it is bigger at the end of this month than it was at the start.) MIght I suggest that pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media take note of it here too?

PS: Which 'quadrant' do you fit into? Left liberal? Right conservative? Authoritarian? Centrist? Libertarian? Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz online and find out. Perhaps you are a libertarian too?

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Petition hits 10,000 in one day

MikeE grabbed a screenshot (below) as the Petition to Deny Royal Assent to the Government's 'Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free' legislation clicked over ten-thousand names on board, and only one grumpy bum among them.That's ten-thousand signatures in just one day! (No wonder Labour lackie Jordan Carter whose name was included by some wag as signatory 3038 is so grumpy. All the anger, poor Jordan declares sniffily, is just "the angry right [continuing] to go mental over losing the election." He can't get his head around the idea that the anger just might be justified.) However, as MikeE notes:

It is currently the 2nd most popular petition online on the Internet (at least on petitionsonline, which as far as I know is the biggest petition site on the web).

Will people take notice of this? Or is 10,000 people on one day too few?

PS: I'm happy to boast I'm number 8 on the petition. :-) I bet there are many of you too who would want to boast -- I wonder if petition organiser Blair Mulholland was to organise T-shirts or bumper stickers showing personalised signatory numbers how much he would make? Would you buy one?

Well, if that was reflected in a similar thrust in Parliament I would say it's unequivocally good -- given the prevailing policy focus of all the major parties the less parliamentary focus on policy there is from the ruling party the less meddling we would have to endure. Sadly however, I suspect the focus in Parliament has been about 80% on policy, 15% on avoiding questions, and 5% on "moving on."

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policyformulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

That's the global average for tropospheric temperatures shown at the top, with the northern hemisphere in the middle, and us colder cousins at the bottom. [Cambridge physicist Luboš Motl summarises here.] That 'El Nino' spike in 1988 aside, there's been nothing of note to deny down here.

"A Year of Vindication for Global Warming Skeptics":Rob Bradley from the Institute for Energy Research (one of those nasty members of the global warming "denial industry") has called 2006 a year of vindication for [global warming] skeptics. He summarises some of the recent highlights:

Alaska Cooling: According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

Oceans Cooling: Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years...

Light Hurricane Season & Early Winter: Despite predictions that 2006 would bring numerous tropical storms, 2006's surprisingly light hurricane season and the record early start of this year's winter in many parts of the U.S. have further put a damper on the constant doomsaying of the global warming alarmists and their media allies.

Droughts Less Frequent: the claim that droughts would be more frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S. becoming "shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country over the last century."

Global Warming Will Not Lead to Next Ice Age : Fears that global warming could lead to the next ice age, as promoted in the 2004 Hollywood movie "The Day After Tomorrow" are also unsupportable. "...two different research teams present convincing evidence [ in Geophysical Research Letters ] that no slowdown is occurring whatsoever,"according to Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, editor of the website World Climate Report.

Study Shows Greenland's Ice Growing, Arctic warmer in 1930's than today:A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showedthat the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

Polar Bears Not Going Extinct: Polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut. "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006.

"Inhofe Correct On Global Warming," by David Deming, geophysicist, adjunctscholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs http://www.ocpathink.organd associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

Honour?

From the front page of today's Herald, in a 'pull-out' on the 'Get Out of Jail Free Act':

Opposition leader Don Brash says it means there is "no legal obligation on anybody to pay back anything." But Prime Minister Helen Clark disagrees: "I don't believe that's the intention at all but you have to take parties at their word and they say they will refund that becomes a matter of honour."

Honour? From a politician? The irony really is palpable. Time for that old, old joke:

Q: How do you know when a politician's lying?A: Their lips are moving.

Are libertarians "right wing"?

Libertarianz are an "extreme right wing party," declared Helen Clark a few weeks back. The Herald yesterday called Libertarianz a "right wing political party" (since amended I see, well done The Herald.) Well let me just clarify: libertarians are as "right wing" as Herald journalist Fran O'Sullivan is a blogger.

Libertarians are not right wing. The "right wing" is generally inhabited by conservatives, and what they wish to conserve depends on the context. At best conservatives are economically liberal, but on issues of personal freedom they're generally big-government busybodies. In New Zealand, in general, conservatives have helped to conserve big government and a shackled market while being agnostic or even worse on issues of personal freedom such as free speech.

Libertarians are not right wing.

Libertarians are not left wing. The "left wing" is generally inhabited by those who are personally liberal but economically authoritarian -- with the authoritarianism generally infecting whatever liberalism they espouse.

Libertarians are not left wing.

In fact, both left and right wing are just variations of a collectivist theme. Both "wings" see government's job as bossing people around, putting their hands in your pocket and distributing whatever they find there -- the only fundamental arguments between them are over what the bossing is about, and to whom the goodies go.

"Left" and "right wing" are simply two ends of a one-dimensional spectrum that collapses important distinctions and obscures more than it reveals.

Libertarians are neither left nor right wing. On the two-dimensional spectrum seen at left we are North, as oposed to the authoritarian South of the spectrum. We are economically liberal AND personally liberal: we say you should have the same freedom to do what you wish in the boardroom as you should in the bedrooom, (with the only proviso being rules against the initiation of force or fraud). We are in favour of capitalist acts between consenting adults.

So are we liberals? No! The word "liberal" has been perverted too long by wet, hand-wringing, limp-dick, pussy-whipped, guilt-ridden, spineless, big-government-worshipping tossers intent on stealing your wallet and bossing around your children. It's too late for "liberal," whether classical or otherwise.

We are not liberals; we are not right wing; we are not left wing. We are libertarian. If you too believe consistently in economic and personal freedom, then have the balls to call yourself a libertarian too!

FREE RADICAL 72: The great environmental sellout - why 'Bluegreen' is the new wet

The mainstream media only picked up on NZ's political challenge of the year in late September, but The Free Radical had the whole Darnton V Clark story and the details about the stolen election in July!

Free Radical 72 is out now, it gets beneath the news, and it's ready to hit your letter box today. SUBSCRIBE NOW. In this issue:

We look at the 'other side of the aisle': we examine the National Party’s much-trumpeted and much-deliberated upon environmental policy release, and we ask the question, “Why is it so bloody wet?”** We point out why it is a lost opportunity.** We explain why, if implemented, National's policies promise to further erode liberty and property rights in New Zealand.** And we explain what a rational set of environmental policies might look like.

Bernard Darnton updates reactions to his case against the Clark Government's stolen election.

All this and more, much more, including your own cut-out-and-keep Al Gore poster -- perfect for your wall, fridge or door-mat! -- your own 'Labour Party Problem Solving Wallchart,' and regular columns by George Reisman, Jason Roth (from Save the Humans), Rex Benson, 'Susan the Libertarian,' and Carol the Montessorian ... along with regular features on art, architecture, beer, music, health and much, much more!!

Don't miss out. Look for it in the very best newsagents, or you can SUBSCRIBE NOW to get your own copy of this, the first issue by the new editor: me.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

"No Royal Assent to Electoral Act Violations"

The Petition asks the Governor-General to refuse giving Royal Assent to this disgraceful retrospective legalisation legislation currently being rammed through Parliament. I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself.

Banana Republic Day

Just clarifying what Bernard Darnton will be doing today. From his blog:

Libertarianz will be marking New Zealand’s transition from a land of constitutionally limited government to banana republic by declaring October 18th to be Banana Republic Day. Libertarianz members and supporters will be outside Parliament from 11:30 this morning handing out bananas to mark this inauspicious occasion.

'Legal highway robbery' says Maori Party

"The Maori Party is describing the government's bill to validate election overspending as 'legal highway robbery'... [Hone Harawira] says walking your talk is the first principle of genuine leadership and that cowering behind the facade of legislation is the domain of thieves and scoundrels."

Good for them.

"National is telling Labour the public will never forgive it for passing retrospective legislation to validate its overspend at the last election."

But it hasn't told the public that it would rescind that retrospective legislation, has it?

"[Constitutional law expert Bill Hodge says he] does not trust the government and believes Labour could use the legislation to avoid paying back the money it owes. Hodge says it is bad for the government to bring parliament into the debate as it besmirches the legal system and makes New Zealand look like a banana republic."

He's right on the money, isn't he.

"The leader of the Libertarianz Party is not ruling out further legal action against the government. Bernard Darnton admits his high court case attempting to declare Labour's pledge card spending illegal has little chance of survival. He says the bill will likely spell the end to the action. But Darnton says he will be looking for other avenues to take."

One of those actions will be to declare and host a 'Banana Republic Day' on the steps of Parliament at 11:30am today. JOIN HIM DOWN THERE IF YOU CAN, AND BRING YOUR OWN BANANAS & YELLOW BALLOONS.

Clause 6A(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the High Court proceedings of Darnton v Clark dated 29 June 2006 (Civ No. 2006-485-1398) in which the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the expenditure on the “pledge card” and related brochures by the Labour Parliamentary Party is a breach of the Constitution Act 1986, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Bill of Rights 1688.

DPF's reaction says it all:

This is even more repugnant than what Muldoon did as he did not stand to personally benefit from his actions in Fitzgerald v Muldoon. This also cements in place the big lie that Labour pushes that the Auditor-General changed the rules. The AG is adamant he did not, and this lawsuit would have allowed a Judge to decide whether or not the pledge card was legal under the current rules.

"L’État, c’est moi"

When Bernard Darnton publicly issued his legal challenge against this Government over their stolen election, he said that in knowingly stealing public money to fund their election campaign Labour broke the fundamental rules that separate liberal democracy from dictatorship.

"Darnton is calling for the High Court to make a declaration that this expenditure was illegal."- That was confirmed in Parliament yesterday.

"Helen Clark is not above the law,” Darnton said. “This time she’s not going to get away with it.”- Unfortunately ...

"This government seems to have forgotten who’s in charge. In a democracy, the people are in charge."- The former statement is confirmed; the latter ...

"The government is the servant of the people, not their master." Compare this to Helen - Clark's statement that "the job of government is what we say it is."

"The appropriations rules are one of our basic constitutional protections. By ignoring the appropriations rules, this government has shown that it doesn’t care about the will of Parliament or the will of the people and is quite happy to behave like a dictatorship." - Hardly needs comment, does it.

"A declaration by the High Court that this spending was illegal will send a clear reminder to the Clark regime that they are not above the law and that they are still answerable to their master, the public."- They've had the reminder. The answer, it is clear, is now up to you.

Darnton concluded that first statement by reminding New Zealanders "A government that follows the rule of law is essential to a free and open society." This Government has thumbed its nose at any notion of that concept, and reminded us all that in this country, there are even fewer limits to power than we ever dreamed to be true. "We are reminding Government that there are limits to their power," said Darnton. This Government has openly declared its own power off-limits to any challenge.

In 2003, Helen Clark declared that "the government's role is whatever the Government defines it to be." The Clark Government is now defining itself to above the law. Before the 2002 election Helen Clark explicitly declared, "The State is sovereign." With yesterday's legal legerdemain, she is effectively declaring, "L’État, c’est moi" -- I am the State!

Fitzgerald v Muldoon emphatically confirmed the constitutional position. Parliament trumps everyone. It trumps the Executive, it trumps the One News room, and even though our present Chief Justice has suggested some theoretical constraints to the rule, for the largest part it trumps the judges. If you can get the numbers in the house, then you make the law.

Darnton V Clark has if anything re-confirmed that. It has demonstrated just how bereft we are of constitutional limits on the abuse of power.

What happens next, more than at any other time, is really up to you who is reading this. How angry has this made you? And what are you going to do about it?

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Darnton: We're screwed

The legislation introduced under urgency this afternoon to validate this Labour Government's theft of money by which they stole an election is to be rammed through without the bill being available to view even by those voting on it, without debate on the Auditor-General's report which was the proximate cause of, without the advice on which the bill has been drawn up being made available, without any substantive debate on the bill being allowed by the speaker, and without any formal commitment to pay back the money illegally used. [Hat tip DPF]

Not only that, the advice is that the legislation has the effect of knocking out Bernard Darnton's case against Helen Clark, the Labour Party and Parliamentary Services. Says Bernard Darnton:

Retrospective legislation introduced into Parliament today will probably spell the end of Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton's lawsuit against Helen Clark and other Labour members but Darnton is claiming a moral victory.

He says, “if Labour had thought they were in the right they would have seen us in court. In reality, they knew they were going to get a hiding and so they're changing the law before the case can be tried.

“This government has proven that they have no respect for the law. They've said they have legal opinions that differ to mine but they aren't prepared to see them fail in court. Right at the start of this case I said that this government thought they were above the law. They've proved me right in a very disturbing fashion.

“Changing the law to escape charges against them is something I'd expect from a third-world dictatorship. Sadly, New Zealand has no constitutional protections to prevent this type of abuse by a government that is, quite literally, out of control.”

Darnton is continuing to look at his legal options.

If the Foreshore and Seabed Act was introduced with the express aim of making it impossible to go to court to prove pre-existing property rights then this bill has the express aim of making it impossible to hold this Government to account, and the manner it is being introduced just shits all over any pretence at this country being a western liberal democracy in which the Government is subject to the rule of law.

We're fucked. Free speech is under attack. The rule of law is now a joke. And we have a Government that will do anything, including stealing an election, to stay in power.

This is not just a whiff of corruption: this is a whole toxic cloud of fetid power-lust that in a very short time has engulfed the political processes of this country.

UPDATE: Reaction everywhere. David Slack's is perhaps the most temperate, contrasting this to Fitzgerald v Muldoon and pointing out that the ruling then indicated that Parliament is supreme, something Muldoon at least was unwilling to use to his advantage -- a surprising scrupulousness this Government is unwilling to emulate.

I found several web-related applications were un-usable but maybe they are waiting for the final version before issuing patches. What was more disturbing was I found the browser itself was flakey. Tool-bars would not stay put when locked. The main IE toolbar (home, print etc) died: click the button & no response. I had to enable the menu to get access to basic functions. After that experience it's not a release I'll be rushing to install.

Tip Jar

In America, they tip. In NZ, we shout beer. If you like the service here at Not PC, drop a tip in the tip jar and you can do both.

Recent
Comments

Thoughtful pieces for a long weekend
Agree about beer. I don't know how you rationalize your pro-marijuana/narcotic drug position though.

During brain maturation at puberty- where there is an explosion of intellectual connections in the brain, like when a toddler is 2 yrs old - marijuana stunts the explosion and robs adolescents of their potential.Read "The Great Brain Robbery".

I hate to say this - but I think if you had kids and YOUR kids were offered drugs by dealers you would think differently about legalising them.

If your kid is on drugs, all your years of good parenting go down the drain. You finish up dealing with the results of a chemical rather than the results of your parenting. And Libz think this is ok. This is why I won't vote for you.
Oh and BTW I'm sure your Montessori woman whoud not want her years of good teaching to go down the toilet because her students decided to try taking drugs.And believe me - that is what happens.

At least the current legislation makes it harder, and more expensive to obtain narcotics.
The point Ruth is that life is a series of trade offs. The question at the heart of the drug issue is this...Does prohabition make things better over all...or worse? Are children more likely to encounter drugs and get hooked if the supply of them is left in the hands of criminals with no scruples...or if the supply is out in the open so that those who wish to use can do so without having to deal with criminals who aren't known for being too concerned about quality control in their products?

Its the lesser of two evils argument .As one commentator on Lindsays blog said...

" Tsk, tsk, Lindsay. Of course making it illegal for these students to drink will stop them. Haven't you noticed how well the drug laws have worked? The difference is amazing. With the stroke of a pen we ended up with a drug free New Zealand. No one dares smoke pot because of the laws. And in places like the US, with the harshest laws on the planet outside places like Indonesia and North Korea, the police haven't found a marijuana plant in decades, the prisons are now empty and simply no one indulges. Yes, a place called Camelot was created with some paper and the magical signatures of the leaders. I understand next they will ban unpleasant weather. And to think we get to see utopia in our lifetime."

And yes Ruth...they are being cynical. ;-)
"Are children more likely to encounter drugs and get hooked if the supply of them is left in the hands of criminals with no scruples...or if the supply is out in the open so that those who wish to use can do so without having to deal with criminals who aren't known for being too concerned about quality control in their products?"

I asked my 17 year old this question- she said it doesn't make any difference - if it was legal more people would use it and it would be good for stoners.

Of course my 15year old son said "Who gives a shit". ;-)

The fact that kids know that using marijuana is illegal is a good preventive - even though the pro-pot lobby is very strong. And they are WRONG - as it its linked to mental illness and suicide.
"The responsible use of drugs does not exist. Drugs destroy. And things that destroy must never be made legal. If we allow drugs to be legalized, nothing will stem the progress of evil." Dutch Citizens .

This is my next whispering campaign. Drugs destroy.
Perhaps you misunderstood, Ruth, when I said you're not welcome here. What I meant by that was specifically this: You are not welcome here.

Please take your authoritarian self-obsessions elsewhere.
Mai Chen?
"I asked my 17 year old this question- she said it doesn't make any difference - if it was legal more people would use it and it would be good for stoners."

And just how the hell does she know that? Experienced both before and after prohabition somewhere has she...? Tsk!
"The problem is too little globalisation, and too little capitalism..."
THE ONION: N. Korea Detonates 40 Years Of GDP
In the pub, with the Greens.
You know Metiria Turei and Nandor used to call themselves anarchists.
Given a total freedom from age limits, I would anticipate a good amrket for bars that banned unacompanied under thirties!
An update from today's Hypocrisy files
This is beyond hypocrisy, this is dictatorial!
I looked at the same article and came away with a slightly different perspective.
Beer O'Clock: A fine spring beer, Wanaka Brewski
... you can't help rue the demise of the Parrot & Jigger's nor'wester given the conditions of late. Just what the doctor ordered, strong pale ale to usher in the season...

and if you have anything similarly related stu, a visit to wigtoft villa on Sunday arvo will be in order.
Perigo now on air
Sure - it would be great to listen live online if they didn't use a streaming format I can't decode. I don't understand why they use a proprietary format when there are so many others available.
How the new 'left' and 'right' meet in the authoritarian middle
great post, well written
Uh OK, now I understand why you wont join National. Too damn honest. That was a brilliant analysis.

We can be thankful for Reagan, Thatcher and Douglas. I do not share the complete indictment of neo cons.

Given your previous libertarian invitation how do you suggest the voter is persuaded of their own best interest. or is it the dictatorship of the majority?

That post deserves a more considered comment than I have time for. buy yourself a beer this afternoon, you deserve it
I hope you realise your description of (neo)conservatism and the relation of Bush to (neo)conservatism is something of the strawmen libertarianz are so fond of?

The first rule of being taken seriously in a debate is taking your opponents' arguments seriously and not ascribe things to them they haven't claimed.

G.W. Bush is conservative, but not a conservative for example.
"We can be thankful for Reagan, Thatcher and Douglas. I do not share the complete indictment of neo cons."

And we are Phil.

The issue of agreement on foreign policy should be addressed here. It seldom is. Iraq is costing $2bill per week. One cannot be intellectually honest and honk on about the cost of the welfare state, the poor, hospitals, and so on, while forgetting the largest govt dept - the army.
I don't think that I am a Labour strategist. Or if I am, then I can say hand on heart that it sure doesn't feel like it.

I agree with aspects of your critique and will post on that shortly.
Thanks for the comments everyone, including uninvited and more than ironic comments on "intellectual honesty."

PHIL: "OK, now I understand why you wont join National."

Phew. So those full-colour brochures will stop materialising in my letterbox now? ;^)

"Given your previous libertarian invitation how do you suggest the voter is persuaded of their own best interest..."

Slowly, and one at a time. [That's a reference BTW to a black US libertarian with the nickname of Senator Chocolate who used to say "people are deluded en masse and enlightened one at at a time."]

In the meantime the job of libertarians is trying to drag all supporters across the spectrum further 'north' towards the freer part of the spectrum.

Oh, that was simply a less than subtle dig at Strategist-for-a-day Pete Hodgson. I figured you guys might just pass the job around?

"I agree with aspects of your critique and will post on that shortly."

Look forward to it.

PHIL: "Buy yourself a beer this afternoon, you deserve it"On my way very shortly. :-)
Yes, PC, Bush isn't A conservative. He is conservative.

Please point me to any statement where Bush claims he is a leader of the conservative movement. Or even a link where people consider him to be a leader of this movement.
Berend, I really think you should re-read your comments for relevance before you send them.
Always thought it a case of "Hi, big Govt. BTW, have you met big Govt?"
Libertarians are swing voters - study
ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political description thatfits you best is...

.

LIBERTARIAN

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

(ACT member and voter)
I took it a while ago and scored 100% libertarian, which I was rather proud of. So I am what I have dubbed North Pole (ie, as far North as you can get).
You must be two of those libertarians dominatingthe ACT Party, huh?

How are you going at changing the policies in that direction?
Thought for the night ...
Petition hits 10,000 in one day
over 12,000 now and still going yp at a fast rate. And I reckon it should be signed to at least show we won't stand for Labour's crap.
I am at number 2636, I immediately informed my friend Mike about the petition and he signed about a minute after me, at 2658. The petition was rolling like a juggernaut last night.
I've only seen references to the petition here and in DPF's blog--no mention in the online NZ newspapers.Does anyone know where else it's being publicised?
Well, kg, it is being publicised on my blog, Random Thoughts.
Newstalk ZB were giving it a good plug all afternoon, I'm told other radio stations have also picked up on it, and I suspect a good few viral emails are also circulating.

Keep it going!
Thanks guys. Trying to spread the word too. This is great stuff!
17,415 so far.
How many more thousands of New Zealander's does it take to make the media recognise the extent of public anger over the labour Govt.
Has it ocurred to our precious Jordan that they may in fact be more than one Jordan Carter in Wellington?
I just found out that it has now been published online by a news paper. Finally!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10406776
No idea how many 'Jordan Carters' there are in Wellington (or how much spine there is in the poor lamb presently under discussion) but there are 165 Jordan Carters in the USA. See HowManyOfMe.Com. [Hat tip, She Who Can't Be Obeyed.]
Proudly no. 2094 PC - and delighted to see numerous family members & friends there, too ... and no, I did not add them, even though I was a little tempted. :)

19,000+ at 9.25am .. Leighton Smith plugging it a lot.
I am 1716 and have got four people to sign it. I have also asked another four. And at last check 21,653 signees
I have set up a new site here to promote the petition.

I don't know about tshirts, maybe somebody else wants to take that ball and run with it? I'd proudly wear a #1!
Anti-DPB activist on air
Govt "not focusing on policy"?
A year of vindication for global warming skeptics
FYI: the list of 2006 cinvidcation is messed up (on IE6). Check your html?
As was said on an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit on Monday, global warming is "bullshit". As they said on that episode, many of the same people that are claiming global warming is happening due to carbon dioxide were claiming decades ago that it would cause an ice age and they did this switch without pause for breath.
Fixed now, I trust?
not just Canadian scientists, PC ... they're from all over the world, including our own local sceptics: Augie Auer, Vincent Gray and Chris de Freitas.
Ah, well spotted Hemi. I've added that news. Thanks. :-)
One thing I have noticed about the following facts are that they are mostly the same people (lefties).

#1) The majority of the lefties are Pro-Global-Warming.

#2) The majority of the lefties do suport ban on whaling.

#3) The majority of the lefties are against the shifting of the rare snails from the mining area in the South Island.

#4) The majority of the lefties don't like inovators like Bill Gates & big corporations.

#4) The majority of the lefties support Mat McCarten and those demanding outrages wage increase while they (Mat & those like him), don't start a business and pay their workers $150 per hour.

#5) The majority of the lefties support that McDonald ads on TV should be banned or banned fast food from the country altogether.

#5) The majority of the lefties all support any form of Government that can act as nanny to its own citizens.

#6) The majority of the lefties don't like the US or Israel, regardless of what those countries do.

#7) ... and on and on and on and on...
Honour?
I wouldn't even a trust a politician that is saying their name :-P
"Our government . . . teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." – Louis Brandeis (1856 - 1941) US Supreme Court justice.
Are libertarians "right wing"?
You think the NZ political spectrum post/image needs updating a bit based on recent behavior of parties and post election MPs.

I.e. Now we've seen the maori party in action, and ACT is down to its two "more libertarian" MPS (well so libertarian as to force a board member to resign apparently :-P)
Hi Mike,

You may be right, and I should probably send out all the quizzes to all of the 120 MPs since the composition of Parliament has changed so much since last time.

In the meantime all I have to go on is policy, which (as we've argued about before here at this blog) is reflected in the current party positions -- and whatever the private views of politicians might be, in the end it's their policies by which they're judged.

Whatever the private views of the ACT caucus for example, their position on the spectrum is accurately reflective of their party policies.

And as far as the Maori Party goes, I don't think we've seen any substantive policy yet beyond the one single issue, so how you would position them at all is beyond me.

But do feel free to pre-empt me and send out quizzes to all the MPs you wish and let me know the responses at 'organon at ihug dot co dot nz.' If you do decide to do the hard work, can I suggest you use the Advocates quiz linked above, since it keeps the positions consistent.

Cheers,PC
Nevertheless your support and readership base is overwhelmingly conservative.

They've bought in because by-and-large you support policies that they support. The rest of the libertarian "morals" stuff - abortion and so forth- is just baggage to the tax cuts, the drowning the government, the Iraq war, Islam etc. I'd argue that many only believe or say they agree with the "moral" stuff because it helps defend emotionally their position on more substantive matters.

For example I doubt many here would be apoplectic about the Bush destruction of the Constitution, torture, illegal wire-tapping etc.

I do think there is a significant segment of well-meaning, intelligent right-wing people who are not beyond reason, but I suspect most see you as playing to their frames. That's not a criticism of you - it's just the way it is.
Anon, you say, "Nevertheless your support and readership base is overwhelmingly conservative."

Well, since most criticism of government is criticism of a particular Government, other critics of that same Government will often see you as an ally, as indeed you are in trying to get rid of that Government. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is the principle here, isn't it.

There might be many areas of agreement on grounds for criticism, but that doesn't mean you're allies on everything you wish to actually promote however, does it?

When criticism is the name of the game -- as it largely is in opposition -- then all criticisms get thrown into the pot, with the justification for those criticisms often ignored, no?

When a more obviously socialist government is in power for example and a libertarian declares that taxation is theft and therefore a tax cut is a moral imperative, a conservative is likely to look at such a criticism approvingly. Try making the same criticism of a conservative government in power however, and you'll find the number of conservative cheerleaders for that line of criticism greatly diminished.

So it's all about context.

It was very much easier, I should point out, to differentiate Libz from conservatives when the earlier National Socialist Government of Neville Bolger and Headmistress Shipley was still in power because they were so bad, and our criticisms of them so savage.

No one then could have claimed that "we support policies they support" or anything even close to vice versa.

I agree with you that "there is a significant segment of well-meaning, intelligent right-wing people who are not beyond reason," and while I'm criticising their enemy and they are in agreement I hope I can persuade them at the same time to be more principled in their opposition, and more freedom-loving in their own policy positions.

And I would say the same about any well-meaning, intelligent people who visit here who identify as left-wing.
I see that the Green Party occupy the 'West-Wing' on that diagram. Does the White House know that the Greens are after all pro-American since they had always occupy the West-Wing.
FREE RADICAL 72: The great environmental sellout - why 'Bluegreen' is the new wet
The new editor! Congratulations PC.Can't find the mag anywhere in this town, so it looks like it'll have to be a subscription.
Thanks KG. You can also buy a single electronic copy online here. The new issue should be there soon. :-)
I hope the "Civil War" article doesn't become breaking news...
Peter,

I saw part of this post on SOLO.

I would like to help out (depending on the cost), with no strings attached regarding the SOLO website.

I presume your webmaster/s are working pro bono. With due respect, the site is one of the worst - functionally- I have seen on the internet. Like most visitors, I do not navigate beyond the first page, because I cannot see what is available beyond the first page. In fact, 99% of the time I cannot even *read* the first page, as scrolling down or mousing over causes the text to disappear completely. Graphics usually do not appear at all, and the font is changes at random.

If you are interested I am genuinely happy to pay for a professional webmaster to re-tool and maintain the site, for my own benefit as much as anyone elses's.
I'd be very happy to accept your generous offer, Anonymous.

Perhaps you could email me at 'organon at ihug dot co dot nz'?

:-)
PC,

I think that Julian & Duncan are looking after your Libz Solo site. Why doesn't just the Libz pay them some small compensation so that they could put more time to it. As I understand that they are just maintaining the site when they have free time. These guys are software engineers (computer science dudes) and perhaps that they are aware with the problem that anon described, but give them a little bit (cash or tray of steinlagers), and they will find time to add more functionalities to the site.

Just a thought.
"No Royal Assent to Electoral Act Violations"
I have signed it and have been watching it since then and it has gone up by more than 100 signatures in that time!
I'd have though it might have a larger snowball's chance of succeeding if it identified the correct act being retrospectively amended. How will the GG possibly know which bill you're talking about?

Incidentally, while I follow the reasoning, there is a certain piquant irony in all the libertarian names on a petition asking an unelected head of state to override the will of Parliament. Interesting times.

Yes, it has gone up rather quickly.
Over 2000 signatures now!
Lyndon - You play the game you have not the one you want.
Lyndon, it's all grist for the mill. The more stink that gets kicked up over this & the more unpopular Labour will becomes the more likely Helen will get knifed in the back by her own party.

True, she should be doing PD as many ot the people who've 'misappropriated' far less money are doing, but it's something to be getting on with.

It might also give Labour pause before it rams through the other legislation it has planned. Namely funding 100% of election campaigns out of taxation and banning free-speech by non-politicians during election campaigns.

Remember, things can get worse! Already the police under labour have charged TWO people for sedition this year!!

Time to push Helen off the Gravy train by any means necessary!
It's true that I wrote it up in haste and omitted to cite the main focus of the validating legislation. However, the wording is still technically correct, as the spending also breached the Electorate Act, and that is in fact the grounds under which royal assent should be withheld, not that taxpayer money was spent per se.
Farrar:"I have even said that some validating legislation is desirable and have criticised National's approach to the bill. What I am vocal on is the urgency and the killing off of the lawsuit.

I have also resisted linking to the governor-general petition".

One of these things is just like the other:

LabourGreensNZ FirstACTNationalUnited FutureRight wing bloggers

Sorry I have been unable to leave your magnificence alone - so to speak - once more.
I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but the Governor-General doesn't have the power to refuse Royal Assent to legislation. In fact, neither does the Queen.

This isn't simply my view, it is the view of almost every British constitutional lawyer since Dicey; and perhaps even before.
2705 now. Not bad for such a small country.
Again Lewis,

It's not about whether the GG will do anything - because he won't - it's about making a stink. In fact it's about getting NZers ~used~ to making a political stink - something that most NZers ~don't do~ because they don't like to think about the long term consequences of political actions undertaken by the Beehive.

And that's hw we ended up in this shitty mess in the first place.
Lewis is talking bollocks. Royal Assent was withheld from legislation in Britain as recently as 1999, in Australia in 1976, and Alberta Canada in 1937.

It's a bit like saying someone doesn't have the power to refuse to sign a cheque - of course they do! They just don't sign it!
The power to withhold assent is listed on the Governor General's own website. If it doesn't exist, how come Satyanand thinks he has this power?
Indeed the power exists. It is one of the more important parts of his job.
Hear, hear, RW. *That's* what it's about.

Just topped the 5300 mark ..
Some things never change:"Our government . . . teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." – Louis Brandeis (1856 - 1941) US Supreme Court justice.
It's over 7100 now.
Just got a screenshot of when it hit 10k, posted it now.
Tax cuts are good for growth
And you wonder why people call you right wing.
You think wanting to keep your own money is "right wing," Sam?
He's a good lad, Phil Rennie. Always thought he would go places.
"Right wing..."Left wing"...all part of the same big government turkey...You think wanting to keep your own money is "right wing," Sam?

I was referring to this strange "tax cuts are good for growth" assertion. Can you perhaps point to some hard data that shows this to have been the case? It sure wasn't after the tax cuts here in the 90s, and it sure wasn't after the last round of US tax cuts. It's just not absolute like that, and parrotting it in absolutes is how you paint yourself the colour of right wing.

Wanting to keep your own money is not right wing, but referring to the earnings, the vouchers for your portion of the wealth of society, using the slogan-friendly "your own money", with particular reference to the act of taxation - as if the money would mean anything without the society - is the kind of oversimpliciation that leads people to pidgeonhole you.

I think the left ring vs right wing thing is bullshit, too. You're far from the socially conservative, economic liberal that heralds the worst of the right wing.
Breakfast with Perigo & Brash
Any chance this will be availible online later...? The more info out there the more minds change...
Not sure, James. Perigo posted a brief account of the breakfast over at SOLO. "I wish the public of New Zealand could see this Don Brash on its tv screens. Anyway, I hammered him on his backslidings from providing a radical freedom-friendly alternative to the current government." Go take a look and beg for some audio. :-)
That would have been a good idea. i have suggested it to the directors for the next one we do.

it was a very presentation, i think everyone got a lot out of it, i was quite surprised by how eloquent DB is and how he can take being given grief about his personal foibles with a smile. something i don;t see a labour person doing.

if anyone wants to be contacted about the next one, drop me an email alanb@fsb.co.nz well worth it i think.

AL
Banana Republic Day
Just gotta say it again:

When the Labour stole the electionI remained silent;I did not want to be labelled reckless.

When they stole my moneyI remained silent;I knew it was legal.

When they came for my free speech,I did not speak out;That was just campaign reform.

When they came for me,No one could speak out.

Break out the bananas and bend over boys coz it's all downhill from here
'Legal highway robbery' says Maori Party
Wow! really I'm 14 i don't seem to care sry!!
Hannah, you don't care that money that could of been used for your pocket money or for better stuff in your house for you to use (a computer game or two perhaps) was stolen off your parents (tax) and then used for corrupt election campaigning? Firstly you should care about the effect of you and secondly you should always hate corruption even when it doesn't affect you as rights breaches should always be hated.
hannah, not caring about democracy and your rights isn't something to be proud of.
Darnton on air
"L’État, c’est moi"
Well, I would be angry if I actually believed the case was not a waste of precious court time and essentially an exercise in self-promotion under the guise of altruism.

So, the leader's fund money is for use for informing people about your policies. They did that, that's what the pledge card was. Here are my policies. People are sore because it was a campaign that didn't deal with the regular fare of politics - slogans and rhetoric. In a form that will survive tucked in a draw somewhere when you go back to see if they kept their word. Solid promises, not a stupid cartoon. "Here's my credibility, you can keep it".

Ignoring what the AG decides, was it really such a misuse of our money? As Ms. Fitzsimons said, what are politicians to do once the election has been called? Lose their salary and call on their supporters for the money?

No, wait, what are they to do for the month before the election is called? He's either calling for parliamentary staff to work with pay over a month in arrears, or more likely he's just not thinking things through. From what I've seen so far, I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Angry Art
When the Labour stole the electionI remained silent;I did not want to be labelled reckless.

When they stole my moneyI remained silent;I knew it was legal.

When they came for my free speech,I did not speak out;That was just campaign reform.

When they came for me,No one could speak out.

New Zealand wake up
Darnton: We're screwed
They are scumbags, complete scumbags.I hope Brash has the balls to state that this will be overturned post election.Ken
Goodbye any pretence to being a democratic country.
I think your comment from weeks ago that she is very much like the Red Queen is being proven true. Also my best friend has been saying Helen is acting a bit like Stalin in some ways. I think Helen might be trying to prove him right.
I am not going to forget all that labourhas done when it comes to the next election (assuming we still have those then) & will be actively reminding joe public at the time . I suspect there be a hard swing towards national & united future & winston first will disappear into the midst of time.
Helen Clark, 2003: "The government's role is whatever the government defines it to be."

Thomas Jefferson: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Goodbye, democracy. You may not have worked very well, but at least we had one vote every three years. We'll miss you.
All is NOT lost. This is a moral victory - the big task now is for all those who are offended by this act to not forget and let them know we do not forget it. Labour is hoping that given it is two years till the next election, that people will forget and be smiling at the new beads and trinkets they have thrown their way courtesy of the taxpayer.

Labour used taxpayer's money to buy a cornerstone of its election campaign - the public knows it, and Labour changes the law to make it legal. Labour supporters can't, without some sort of Orwellian twist of reality, believe in their heart of hearts that if this had happened under National, that this would be seen as legitimate by them. It wouldn't be either.

So don't forget and don't forget those other parties that complied with it.
There is one last thing all of us can do in respect of this legislation, although it probably won't work.

It is not law until the Governor General signs it, so I intend writing to the G-G and suggesting the 'Royal Ascent' be withheld. There is a (theoretical) power to do so, although it would mean plenty of brown stuff hitting the whirly thing.

Remember, something similar has happened before in Australia in the 1970s. If the G-G loses confidence in the government, he could dismiss them and install a caretaker government (National) pending another election.

Not going to happen, of course, but it never hurts to have enough people ask for it.
Bernard Darnton comment...[Sadly, New Zealand has no constitutional protections to prevent this type of abuse by a government that is, quite literally, out of control.]

Why can't NZ form a 'Constitution' to prevent this type of abuse by the sitting current or future government? If Tonga has a 'Constitution' (drafted by European missionaries in the 1870s based on British systems) which is smaller country than us (NZ), then there should be a referendum on this.
Liberty Scott - Is that it? The sheeple now just go home and wait for an election? Where's the Hungarian spirit?
IE7 - who wants it?
I have used IE7 without these problems PC. However, I too am sticking with Firefox (2.0RC2 to be exact). However, I advise you and all others upgrade IE anyway, as IE is in fact integrated into Windows and IE7 is more secure and stable than IE6 and earlier, so that means your computer will be more stable and secure.
The real bitch is that IE7 has different CSS compliance issues to IE6 and FF - so those of us tasked with making web sites accessable have been handed yet another variation of browser standards to deal with. Anger.
The thhing is it's being deployed as a critical update so, want it or not, unless you download a patch to block it you'll get it.
When the Labour stole the electionI remained silent;I did not want to be labelled reckless.

When they stole my moneyI remained silent;I knew it was legal.

When they came for my free speech,I did not speak out;That was just campaign reform.

When they came for me,No one could speak out.

New Zealand wake up
Robin, actually it can be avoided without the patch to block it. If you use automatic updates just set it to ask you first whether or not to download updates. If you use the Windows Update or Microsoft Update sites then just click the Custom button not Express. That way you get to choose what updates are installed. You can even choose not to install critical updates, such as the crap known as Genuine Windows Advantage that is more annoying than IE6 even let alone 7. Genuine Advantage my ass! Genuine Advantage for Microsoft not the customers.